Everton and Liverpool history

Hmm, I've definitely heard Liverpool be spoken about as a club with a long-running socialist tendency. And of course Shankly was a socialist too

Perhaps this is going to be one of those where both sides claim to be the good guys

The example I didn't add in the initial post was Edinburgh - Hibs is the working class club based in Leith whereas Hearts is the middle class club

It disappoints me how little there is out there on this. I'm looking to do my dissertation this year on a football-related topic (the political and social context of football culture in the lead-up to Hillsborough) but there's very little academic material on football history. Football history tends to be left to football historians, it seems, and they tend not to be academic. Having said that there is one book that I've found that will be very relevant to my topic by Brett Bebber called Violence and Racism in Football: Politics and Cultural Conflict in British Society, 1968-1998 - looking forward to getting my hands on that one

Going back to one of James' posts, he talks about football in various cities.

Edinburgh is an interesting one and I think it's rather complex. Historically, Hibs were an Irish Catholic club. Hearts were not. And, because Protestants tended to do better in the labour market, it's possible that the supporters of Hearts once tended to be more affluent. Whether this made them a specifically "middle-class" club I'm not too sure. The middle classes would have been in the seats at both clubs with the city's Establishment more likely to be wearing the maroon. On the terraces there may have been more artisans and clerks on at Tynecastle; more labourers at Easter Road

In a wider sense Edinburgh football is a scaled-down version of Glasgow. Some Protestants - and those of no faith - may support Hibs. But you'll be hard pressed to find Catholics amongst Hearts' support. It's all rather clichéd but, traditionally, Hibs also represent style - and have appeal to arty and intellectual types - whereas Hearts are more associated with graft.

I've not previously heard of Manchester City and Aston Villa being necessarily more "middle class" than their city neighbours.

Of the two, there may be a greater case for Villa but I'm not sure why I think that. Maybe the area around Villa Park has always been slightly more affluent and "artisan"; possibly more men of local prominence have been involved with the club right back to the formation of the Football League. And in recent times, with a long run in the Premier League, Villa have become something of a West Midlands " super club" which tends to appeal to kids on the commuter estates. By contrast many Birmingham City supporters have developed a certain "edginess". I wouldn't know if this is cultural or socio-economic.

Until the new ownership, Manchester City supporters had been cultivating the image that theirs was the "club of Manchester" favoured by the people of the city as opposed to the internationalism of Manchester United. I always thought that was over-stated because a hell of a lot of Mancunians still support United. Now too, of course, City are becoming increasingly internationalised which just makes the two clubs appear ever more alike. But, historically, I really don't know if there was much difference anyway. We're told about the Catholic nature of United but I wonder if this was mainly a Busby Era thing. Did City attract a disproportionate share of Manchester's Jewish community? I don't know; I must read Colin Schindler again. Are City predominantly the club of Manchester's east? If so, they're hardly "middle class". But I'd like to know more.

I've certainly seen it said that Villa are more middle class than Birmingham - a quick Google search shows a few mentions of it, and even though they aren't from reputed sources (YouTube comments are hardly reliable), it certainly demonstrates that this is a perception

As for Man City, that comes from the geographic areas which the clubs are meant to represent - I found this map produced by the MEN earlier this year very interesting


menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/sport/football/s/1492123_manchester-derby-map-men-survey-reveals-where-city-and-united-fans-really-come-from

Am I right in saying that Stockport and the south tends to be the wealthier end of Manchester? I know it's not an exact science but I get the impression that the areas of Utd support tend to be less well-off than the areas of City support

There's certainly a clear geographic split, as is the case elsewhere - Sheffield and Bristol are the examples that stand out in my mind. But obviously different geographic areas can have different levels of wealth. Definitely something I'd like to investigate further - at the moment I'm trying to think up PhD ideas...

Thanks for the Manchester map, James. There certainly seems to an east-west (or NW/SE) divide according to that evidence. As a general principle I'd say that, for instance, Stockport is a wealthier borough than Salford. That would also be true for the parts of Trafford around Altrincham. On the other hand, there's large blue slabs of east Manchester (some of which are actually in Tameside) which are less affluent.

Generally speaking, Greater Manchester is hard to read because we're talking about towns with separate identities and social structures. So, rather than each being a relatively easily-classifiable suburb, the towns have suburbs of their own with significant socio-economic differences between them. Nor can we be wholly sure who is answering the survey or whether they attend matches. But I'm guessing two things from the map and the way football is now watched.

One, both audiences - red and blue - who attend matches are more "middle -class" than they once were. I'm basing that assertion on the cost of football (and the movement towards purchasing season tickets) in addition to the oft-quoted belief that there are simply more middle-class/upper working-class people these days (if you're not comfortable with these terms, social classes C1 and C2 are probably most pertinent to this debate).

Two, it may be true that the blue areas are slightly more affluent - on balance - than the red. That could be contended but maybe not as much as the reverse statement. But I'm not sure of the significance of this beyond simple geography. Nor how much the gap is statistically significant. I'd argue it's more down to place of residence rather than social class.

Which begs further observations.

One is that I'm surprised by the "blueness" of Stockport. That rather suggests that relatively easy access to Maine Road once played its part.

Secondly, I'd imagine that City's relocation to Eastlands will consolidate their hold over east Manchester but won't alter things too much over the generations.

Three, look at City's ascendancy over the City of Manchester itself. That's a misnomer in a way because plenty of areas that are regarded as "Manchester" are actually in adjoining boroughs. But it's an interesting "finding" if you want to delve into semantics. Perhaps City's fans were correct in claiming Manchester (per se) after all.

But it's all good stuff, James, that's worthy of deeper, more academic analysis. If your PhD takes you down the football path I'm sure there's a few on here who will support and encourage you. We might even waive the normal consultancy fee. Keep at it.

The borough of Dudley can boast Stourbridge.

Who knocked Argyle out of the FA Cup last year.

Any excuse!

A variant of this story exists for teams all over the country. I've heard the claims about West Ham vs Millwall, Portsmouth vs Southampton, and in Rugby League, Wigan v Leigh and even Hull FC vs Hull KR, none of which appear to stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all.

I'll leave it for Wildebeeste to tell us whether there is any truth to the claims of ill feeling between Chesterfield and Mansfield